Also, (and flame away guys ) I'm baffled by the fact that weak regs' incentives even get talked about. Some number of regs is desirable for recs to have game selection and liquidity, on top of that they're superfluous. If you're a weak reg, just move down until you're a strong reg. That's how it works at 6max, and I don't see how the hu lobby necessitates anything different beyond the fact that weak regs sitting huge stakes is the status quo. It's like saying we're neglecting $1/$2 6max regs' rights by not giving them enough soft $2/$4 games to play- it makes no sense!

Completely agree with your first post. When we're talking about "weak regs" here though we're talking about (or at least I am talking about) people who are prepared to give a lot of action but happen not to be 1 of the top few players at a limit. If a weaker reg than me was playing significant volume vs me then I would be more than happy for them to have a fair shot at any recreational players that may sit. I think that is probably reasonable? If the only way they can ever get action from weaker players than themselves is to move down then I don't think that really benefits anyone. In an ideal world, anyone who wants to play a limit and is prepared to play anyone at that limit should be able to do so and have an equal chance to play the weakest players who play that limit. In your example, a better analogy would be a weak 2/4 6max reg who starts tables all the time being unable to ever get on tables with recreational players.

I guess actually we are just talking about something a little bit different when we say weak regulars. I am assuming that under the new system, weak regulars are players who are essentially paying for the right to sit by playing vs better players for some amount of hands. I think these players should then get a fair chance at action from weaker players. I think you are talking about regs who give very little action? We probably don't disagree really here?

Sounds like you have more knowledge of these games than me. Surely if some form of KOTH is implemented then you at least need quite a high number of people able to sit though? I would have thought that even the best reg at low stakes can't beat the next few in line because of the rake? It sounds like some variation of Option 1 works quite well for lower stakes then so that lottery players will get weeded out by regs who actually want to play but in general, regs will be able to sit unmolested a fairly large % of the time assuming that they are good enough to play that limit while people will still be able to get reg action most of the time if desired as well?

Well the beauty of the low stakes is the large player pool, so having a large amount of tables, but still implementing a KOTH structure could do alot of good.

The best 10 regs @100nl would all struggle to turn profit whilst playing each other. Although if there was say 50 tables capped, the top ten regs would have a big enough edge to profit against reg number 50 quite easily. Due to there still being 50 tables I don't think any of the "weak regs" would feel too hunted. Cause there is still ample enough fish to keep 50 tables happy.

Obviously the table cap would have to be decreased at higher limits as mentioned for obvious reasons.

Option 1's success would largely be down to the amount of hands that is deemed to be the minimum. A huge % off the player pool at the small stakes are players who will only play the worst of fish, someone they have +40bb/100 over. If the minimum was said to be 10 hands, I think they would be smart enough to figure out they can just become slight losers of over these 10 hand samples and still churn money off the fish. Which wont change much, just a slightly different, evolved form of griming.

The current system is transparent. Fish see a million people sitting and likely realize that all those people want to play them. If you showed a random 3 games per stake - with a small button to expand to see the whole list - it would still be transparent. That cleans up the lobby clutter.

There is *NOTHING* transparent about either of the solutions you've outlined. Instead of fish joining a random player on the medium to best spectrum, they will instead be put up against the very best players in the world automatically. They won't realize that this is going on, however, because they just want to play the game and don't think about much else. Your suggested systems are misleading.

You didn't address anywhere in your post why it is a good thing that the very best players gets access to the very worst players, with top priority. At best it might generate a little bit of extra action, which I suppose will add a very small amount to PokerStars bottom line, but not really that much.

So what is my suggestion?

What about the system of charging players rent for sitting at an empty table after the first 2 hours per stake, per month? The lottery type players you are talking about would no longer see it as a positive investment because they play people so rarely. This kicks them out. This is really the group we have a problem with, right? Meanwhile, both good and medium regulars can continue sitting. On the surface this might seem bad for these players but in reality they will both get more money in the form of more action.

Edit: Some upsides to this system is that it is self regulating. There will be some equilibrium of people willing to pay rent versus what the current HU climate is like. If there is a lot of fish more people will start paying, and same if the reverse happens. You could also do something like have rake paid count towards the rent - so players that give action are playing rent free, and guys who table select hard are paying quite a bit of rent. Again, this is self regulating and works almost perfectly.

Your solutions *WILL* kick out the medium strength players for the most part. It will be an up or out policy and really only the very best will be able to even play the game anymore if they value making money. That doesn't seem to me what poker is supposed to be all about. Edit: And worse, like others are pointing out, and like I pointed out in the last HU thread Stars made, people will find a way to game both of your systems. Now it won't even be the best player making the money. It will be a band of guys working together to isolate the fish. Which is pretty sick considering it isn't supposed to be a team game.

first of all I would like to thank you guys at stars for letting us players be a part of the process to structure a new lobby.

Your two ideas both have their merits but I think they are going to hard on the "weaker" players , both options are pretty much going to end in some regbattels (dont think they will increase) and a lot of players dropping out.
Basicly everyone who doesnt play the top top players on their stake wont get any good action, top players will make life hell for everyone who is weaker then them and all recriationalaction will be splittet between fewer players.I think you should attack every bumhunter that has stars just as a part of their arsenal.Implemeting a system which relates to the vpps earned could provide this.Lets say for example opensitting Hutables is just possible for platinum+ players(just an example I havent run any numbers) would decrease the number of open tabels by a lot.I understand that not everybody could achieve that by just battling regs but you could implement some features to earn the privilege of opensitting HUtabels (f.e. joining regs,lifetime vpp`s etc), furthermore you could create a turnoverformula to stop guys from bumhunting above their averagestakes.I think everybody that is involved with your site should have the chance to choose which action he wants to take ,of course extreme bumhunting is awfull but poker is a game of making the right decessions and battling it out with toptopregs is an poor one for most the HUpopulation.Please dont let Hu become an elitecircle.

Well the beauty of the low stakes is the large player pool, so having a large amount of tables, but still implementing a KOTH structure could do alot of good.

The best 10 regs @100nl would all struggle to turn profit whilst playing each other. Although if there was say 50 tables capped, the top ten regs would have a big enough edge to profit against reg number 50 quite easily. Due to there still being 50 tables I don't think any of the "weak regs" would feel too hunted. Cause there is still ample enough fish to keep 50 tables happy.

Obviously the table cap would have to be decreased at higher limits as mentioned for obvious reasons.

Option 1's success would largely be down to the amount of hands that is deemed to be the minimum. A huge % off the player pool at the small stakes are players who will only play the worst of fish, someone they have +40bb/100 over. If the minimum was said to be 10 hands, I think they would be smart enough to figure out they can just become slight losers of over these 10 hand samples and still churn money off the fish. Which wont change much, just a slightly different, evolved form of griming.

There is 1 problem with capped number of tables though. It's essentially wealth redistribution from fish to select few based on how many capped tables you have and POKERSTARS DECIDES where the cut off is. It definitely is not good overall imho. I mean it's all good if u happen to be good enough to sit at the table...what if not? How do you define where the cut off is? Is it actually possible to select a fair cut off ? No, because it would be based on subjective equation.

i) You can sit out v. someone given that you've played them, say 100 hands in the past week. This will get rid of the absolute bumhunters*, keep options for the recreational players, and ensure that the mediocre regs have to 'pay' the good for the right to sit out v. them. This also eliminates the problem scenario you talk of.

ii) Only apply the blinds 'fine' for the regs. The recreational players would not like this rule and it was not designed for them. You can easily come up with a good measure of reg (e.g 5,000 HU hands played in the past year, perhaps with some winrate requirement).**

iii) There's nothing to say you can't implement one strategy on Stars, one on Full Tilt, and see which works better (yes, I know you are to some degree separate companies, but still...)

*100 hands is plenty enough to get rid of the bumhunters. Assume someone is bad but refuses to play anyone who isn't awful (there are plenty of these people). They would have to play about 1500 hands per week v. 'regs' which imo is easily enough to dissuade them from sitting HU at all. What's more, you could easily change the 100 hand figure to find the balance that you are looking for.

**The bumhunters might take advantage of the 5,000 hand limit to use new accounts. But it's low enough that they'd need one pretty regularly, so I don't think it's a big problem.

The solution should allow players to concentrate on playing poker. Generally speaking, we’d like to maximize the ratio of time spent at tables to time spent in the lobby

The solution should result in a clean and simple lobby.

While when making changes we generally prefer to minimize disruption to the current environment, in this particular case we expect and accept that the regular playing experience will be materially affected by many players. Minimizing the impact in this regard is at most a minor concern. We are particularly unconcerned about negative impact to “Lottery” type players.

Let's go back to my "You must play at least 10 hands before leaving a table, unless you've played someone 400 hands in the current month".

Recreational players: They will notice that the lobby is less cluttered, and will feel less that they are being hunted or scammed. They will notice NO difference unless they are the type to leave a table without playing 10 hands. In my experience most recreational players don't do this, and I think it's very unlikely that the ones that do would put in less volume because they are not allowed to. Regardless, they would soon learn of this new rule and there would be no further distraction. N.B that these guys will probably never ever learn about the '400 hands a month' rule - it's completely irrelevant to them. Win.

Mediocre regs: These guys are going to have to play against better players. This will be offset by the increased amount of hands v. recreational players they get in, due to the absence of bumhunters. Further they will actually improve by playing better players. Win.

Lottery players: These guys will have to leave, since they'll find 30 regs who want to play them, across all the limits they sit at, and they won't be willing to put in 10k+ hands against people who are competent at poker. Some of them might stick around at lower limits. Lose.

Strong regs: These guys are going to get much more action against regs and more action against recreational players. 400 hands per month per reg probably equates to ~100k extra hands a year, should the strong regs seek it out. Win.

Pokerstars: You implement a transparent and simple framework. You get a cleaner and more simply lobby. You get a million extra hands per year. You get a friendlier environment for recreational players. You get lots of whinging at the start, followed my accustomisation and acceptance of the new rules. Win Win Win.

Last edited by PartyGirlUK; 08-23-2013 at 07:01 PM.
Reason: This would also make no difference for two players who wanted to play each other HU

- 10 tables at each stake with 1 player waiting allowed (maybe the numbers could be adjusted in regards to the amount of players playing at that stake. I expect NL100-200 to be very populated for example. Maybe have some sort of running calculation on the amount of allowed table at each stake in regards to the amount of played hands at that stake or amount of action measured in some other way)
- Unlimited tables with 2 players playing allowed at each stake (obviously).
- Everybody can leave at any time, but then you give up the table obv
- Each player is only allowed to sit 2 different stakes, for 1 table (= only allowed to have 2 HU bumhunting tables)
- When you play you have the "Open Table" option that you discussed in OP, so that when you play an opponent you're allowed to play alot of tables if you want

I think this would cut out alot of players who only intend to bumhunt recreationals, but leave everyone else happy/justified with the situation.

Stronger regulars: obv happy, no explenation neededWeaker regulars: have to identify which stakes they are comfortable battling at, and must step back from bumhunting higher stakes. They will not be abused by stronger regulars if they simply identify their skill/stakes (cuz the stronger regs can only sit 2 different stakes)Lottery player/only bumhunting: have to do the same as the weaker regs, if they dont have any talent or wish to put any effort in becoming better then too bad, move way down or go homeRecreational players: still have a nice clean lobby to choose from, and will surely get action

With this system it is most likely that no table will be sat without play engaging. This is good for the amount of tables running. Everyone who wants to play will get action and very few will probably leave their table

Since I don't believe there are very many purely recreational players left, but simply weaker regs, I think this is a nice system to ensure regs playing with each other, creating more action and more rake for you, PokerStars.

The only downside I see is that the weak regs might move down to much, give up in the competition for higher stakes. Lets say a dude normally plays NL100-600. He simply starts playing NL50-NL200, making the stronger regs lack these players in the playerpool NL400-600. Because sometimes weaker regs sitting in the lobby give you action for a few hundred hands. If they would have to battle for the tables and get crushed alot, maybe they just move down, and stronger regs would not be able to follow them b/c it's probly still more profitable for them to use their 2 stakes at higher limits. I meen, like alot of my profit is from sitting all regs and simply sometimes getting action from someone who picks up the glove. Then maybe win 3-4 buy-ins from them and they don't wanna play no more.. If this system is implemented maybe that option would be decreased.

However I expect the upsides to be far greater than this possible downside, so this change would def seem good to me, and also fair to all.

Another issue tho: how to avoid that the very best reg at each stake don't simply sit all 10 tables all the time to scare away the stronger regs and leave room for weaker regs?

Very good idea. I think the system described here, with maybe some minor modifications, would be the best solution.

There is 1 problem with capped number of tables though. It's essentially wealth redistribution from fish to select few based on how many capped tables you have and POKERSTARS DECIDES where the cut off is. It definitely is not good overall imho. I mean it's all good if u happen to be good enough to sit at the table...what if not? How do you define where the cut off is? Is it actually possible to select a fair cut off ? No, because it would be based on subjective equation.

What if not good enough? Move down like any other form of poker.

How do you define where the cut off is? Through research and trial and error to find the best # of tables per limit.

This 1 problem you speak of is just nothing.

Seems almost everyone is for the capped tables varying for each limit. 90% of us agree its the best solution. It by far has the least ways to angle, while rewarding those who want to battle and get better. So stars should probably look to implement this

How do you define where the cut off is? Through research and trial and error to find the best # of tables per limit.

This 1 problem you speak of is just nothing.

Seems almost everyone is for the capped tables varying for each limit. 90% of us agree its the best solution. It by far has the least ways to angle, while rewarding those who want to battle and get better. So stars should probably look to implement this

Let's say there is 11 tables at one limit. You happen to be 12th. Doesn't mean you are not good enough for this particular limit. You are just unlucky that you are 12th because it's been decided cut off is at 11th table.

Capped number of tables with 1 person sitting at each limit. Most people agree this is the best solution. BUT have this number of tables adjust itself to find the best number for any particular time at any particular level. Stars must have a ton of data on how many matches are going on at different times of day/days of the week etc. From this data they can get a base estimate of what a "normal amount" of action is at any given time. They then raise this figure a little to account for the fact that we hope this will generate more action. Then they start off by introducing a fairly arbitrary table cap. If at any point there is a sub-standard amount of action going on at any limit for a period of 10 minutes then the table cap randomly either increases or decreases by 1 at that limit. If it increases by 1 then there is a new table to fight for, perhaps more than 1 person will fight for it. If it decreases by 1 then 2 of the players (chosen at random) get moved from 2 seperate tables to the same table. Whichever quits first no longer has a table. They may then sit with any of the other seated players in order to fight for a different table if they wish.

You could make the algorithm for doing all this as simple or as complicated as you like but basically the job of it would be to use the data gained by all of these different table cap numbers to predict what a good table cap should be at any given time and then it would move around a bit about that number to account for exactly who is online at that time. If you wanted, you could link this with the forced hands option with the alteration that you can refuse action after x hands/day vs someone. People would then have to play some for the right to sit and then also action would be encouraged whenever it was looking a bit dry at any limit. I think this would maximise the amount being played about as well as it is possible to do and shouldn't be open to massive exploits. You could also have the starting table cap number different for each day/week or whatever so that people might be more encouraged to take a shot when there's a high table limit at the limit above where they play. Also this gets more data for how well different caps do. I was going to go into more detail but decided my time would be better spent losing nearly half a mill at 400/800 and now want to go to bed rather than finish this post lol. But you get the general idea already, can go into more detail another time if stars are interested in something along these lines.

If this is done well, its gonna generate a lot of action heads up. Though are 50 100 and 200nl it may be quite problematic, indeed these are the limits where the rake have the most impact on someone's winrate. I dont have the real bb/100 numbers but its quite high.

We need to talk about rake so it doesnt get in the way of the lobby change.

Capped number of tables with 1 person sitting at each limit. Most people agree this is the best solution. BUT have this number of tables adjust itself to find the best number for any particular time at any particular level. Stars must have a ton of data on how many matches are going on at different times of day/days of the week etc. From this data they can get a base estimate of what a "normal amount" of action is at any given time. They then raise this figure a little to account for the fact that we hope this will generate more action. Then they start off by introducing a fairly arbitrary table cap. If at any point there is a sub-standard amount of action going on at any limit for a period of 10 minutes then the table cap randomly either increases or decreases by 1 at that limit. If it increases by 1 then there is a new table to fight for, perhaps more than 1 person will fight for it. If it decreases by 1 then 2 of the players (chosen at random) get moved from 2 seperate tables to the same table. Whichever quits first no longer has a table. They may then sit with any of the other seated players in order to fight for a different table if they wish.

You could make the algorithm for doing all this as simple or as complicated as you like but basically the job of it would be to use the data gained by all of these different table cap numbers to predict what a good table cap should be at any given time and then it would move around a bit about that number to account for exactly who is online at that time. If you wanted, you could link this with the forced hands option with the alteration that you can refuse action after x hands/day vs someone. People would then have to play some for the right to sit and then also action would be encouraged whenever it was looking a bit dry at any limit. I think this would maximise the amount being played about as well as it is possible to do and shouldn't be open to massive exploits. You could also have the starting table cap number different for each day/week or whatever so that people might be more encouraged to take a shot when there's a high table limit at the limit above where they play. Also this gets more data for how well different caps do. I was going to go into more detail but decided my time would be better spent losing nearly half a mill at 400/800 and now want to go to bed rather than finish this post lol. But you get the general idea already, can go into more detail another time if stars are interested in something along these lines.

There is 1 problem with capped number of tables though. It's essentially wealth redistribution from fish to select few based on how many capped tables you have and POKERSTARS DECIDES where the cut off is. It definitely is not good overall imho. I mean it's all good if u happen to be good enough to sit at the table...what if not? How do you define where the cut off is? Is it actually possible to select a fair cut off ? No, because it would be based on subjective equation.

Your logic is similar to saying its unfair for stars to decide how much rake they take at certain stakes, as then they decide the cut off between a winning and losing player.

Its actually a good wealth redistribution, atm bumhunters win money from fish and use it to line their pockets or bumhunt higher stakes, odds are if the "elite" at a certain stake are getting more action from weak regs/fish they will use it to battle and try to conquer I higher stake, which will in turn create more action and rake for stars.

Its 2013 and the games are tough, and I think everyone who plays can agree something has to be done, If its done right its gona be a harsh reality for some players, Im going to be hurt at the highest stake I play, but the fact is, If you are that player who isnt good enough to cut it at a certain stake, either move down or get better, aint enough money in this game anymore to do otherwise.

I have always thought the heads up lobby on stars was the best and don't understand where this need to improve has come from. maybe due to the top 0.5% of players who's option is massively respected don't benefit from current system. Or the view from a recreational player's point of view, of which i wouldn't no honestly how most would view the current system, probably little confusing would be my first guess.

If its the lobby view problem Nick you are trying to improve as you stated then option 2 would work but changed slightly, the tables on show as you stated are randomised to everyone. Example, say there is 10 tables of 5/10 on view, every player would see a different lobby (10 players) of that to another player, if unhappy with that or a player wanted more choice you enable the "full lobby view" you mentioned. I believe this is sort of how Full tilt works, the lobby order view is totally different when viewed by players. I believe this would work effectively for all player types you addressed in your original post. I also believe this is the less vulnerable to be exploit by certain player types. I think this is fair for everyone.

I cant help but view it in slightly bad taste that a recreational player who is looking to play 25/50 is only being shown players you could arguably call the best in the world. Which is what would happen in a lot of the structures given if not implode right.

I have read lot of posts in this thread as i find it interesting and found that someone was asking why waiting lists are even used. This does make a lot of sense regarding a cleaner lobby Stars is aiming for. Waiting lists seems like a live poker necessity not so much online. This would eliminate scripting and 14+ player waiting lists that are an eye sore. I have not thought to much regarding the pro's and con's on this but defiantly seems like an interesting thought.

Your logic is similar to saying its unfair for stars to decide how much rake they take at certain stakes, as then they decide the cut off between a winning and losing player.

Its actually a good wealth redistribution, atm bumhunters win money from fish and use it to line their pockets or bumhunt higher stakes, odds are if the "elite" at a certain stake are getting more action from weak regs/fish they will use it to battle and try to conquer I higher stake, which will in turn create more action and rake for stars.

Its 2013 and the games are tough, and I think everyone who plays can agree something has to be done, If its done right its gona be a harsh reality for some players, Im going to be hurt at the highest stake I play, but the fact is, If you are that player who isnt good enough to cut it at a certain stake, either move down or get better, aint enough money in this game anymore to do otherwise.

It seems similar but it's a totally different IMHO. I'll give you extreme example to illustrate the problem. Let's say there is 1 table cap for each stake for simplicity sake and now we have top players. This is just theory so don't kill me on this one . Isildur crushes everyone, then we have jungleman, then sauce, then ike, then kanu (this is all in random order! I don't know who is better than who . So now nl10k - isildur and because he crushes everyone jungleman has to move down to nl5k because he can't beat isildur, then sauce has to move down to nl2k, then ike has to move down to nl1k... see my point? They will play against each other sometimes if weaker guys feel like they've gotten better but this system is clearly far from optimal. Adding more tables won't solve the issue. There will be players who should play higher but were forced to move down because there never will be optimal number of tables.

You say they can add more tables. I think that's not exactly how it works in the IT world. They can tell programmers to make certain rules but that's it. Do you think they should make a new position just for analysis HU lobby? This doesn't make sense to me. Not to mention that rules for the number of tables wouldn't optimal anyway as I explained earlier.
That's why pokerstars representative said few times IIRC that rules should be simple so it won't be programmers nightmare. If they had to implement some kind of algorithm that decided on the "optimal" number of tables that would be complex stuff, not simple. Probably involving AI. To make it effective they would need to take broader picture into consideration. Stuff like demographics, legislation changes, time of the day/year (obv) etc. all things affecting traffic. It would be complex system and would have to be looked after and adjusted often, which is not what stars want (and I don't blaime them)

This would involve deploying zoom-like table that pairs players together.
Player clicks "JOIN HU GAME" and then is immediately paired with another player from the hidden waiting list. There will be a game as long as there is at least 2 ppl that clicked "JOIN HU GAME". This solution is aimed to align the act of sitting at a zoom-like table with the intention to play at that table. After players are paired they are removed from the waiting list and moved to the normal table where everyone can watch them.
Certain number of hands will be required to play in order to prevent bumhunting.

Effects on players:Strong Regulars: Strong Regulars will be able to get effectively unlimited action whenever they feel like playing someone who is already on the list waiting for action

Weak Regulars: Weak Regulars will have to either become more comfortable playing others who seat them at a given stake, move down in stakes, or stop playing Heads Up altogether.

“Lottery” Players: It’s likely that Players in this category will largely have to abandon their current table sitting habits. They are very likely to be sat by/paired with better players much more often than by weaker players.

Recreational Players: Recreational players will still have as many people willing to play them as they wish.

PROS:

Lots of action

The lobby will adjust to the optimum number of games where everybody is playing someone

Recreational players will just have to click one button and they get a game immediately

Easy in implementation yet effective, IMHO

?

Cons:

Player can't choose an opponent

Multitable matches. Solution: If two players want to multitable or play against each other there should be an option in the pokerstars client that requests an one on one game after typing screenname in. Other side either accepts or declines (helpful for other game types too!). There should also be a tick box during an 1-on-1 game which enables you to add more tables.

How about emailing surveys to heads up Recreational Players and asking them what they would like better freedom to choose who they wish to play based on the current lobby system, or when they choose to play heads up either by sitting at a occupied table or starting one themselves be forced to play some of the best heads up players at that stake. Explain to them the major pro's and cons of both systems you are proposing and then the current system we have.

You are probably getting emails from many top regs and medium regs to get this situation changed, but being good poker players they are not leaving your site based on the system you currently have in place they are still finding ways to make it work (either playing heads up cash , sng, or not). Recreational players on the other hand will see there recreational dollars disappear quicker and be less likely to deposit again. Alot of lottery players are not good to begin with and should prove to be fairer opponents to the recreational type of player.

You had said in your opening remark that this is the type of player you want to benefit the most from this change. You are not going to get their view point from those type of players from these types of forums and discussions. Its also a little concerning that since starting the tread you have only posted 3 responses and have yet to address many of the concerns people are voicing based on the proposed lobby change.

As mentioned before to clear lobby clutter all you need to do is show 5 random tables at each stake and make the 5 visible ones different to each player logged in and have it rotate every couple of seconds also have a option to disable it. Please for anyone supporting this solution simply type Option 4 +1.